Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=23242		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon May 14, 2012 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
In discussing this issue with the rules committee, it came out that a majority of the members had been breaking out the -1 to be hit "concealment" benefit from the cover save "cover" benefit as follows:

* Being in contact with terrain or an AV is sufficient for the concealment modifier.
* Cover saves require being partially in the terrain (basically, the same standard that a model has to be partially covered by a barrage template to count as being targeted).

I went ahead and modified the draft FAQ for 1.8.3, but I want to get community input on this before we nail it down.
Author:  Man of kent [ Mon May 14, 2012 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
in bristol (at least) we very much disagree the 'touching' terrain modifier similar to vehicles. We view the vehicle modifier to be a simple mechanic to represent infantry huddling around the vehicle whereas just 'touching' terrain seems too abstract and not in the original intention of the rules.

We're not a fan of the 'within 5cm' ruling for disembarking either: feeling that, again, this was meant to (and has long been read as) mean the whole base has to be WITHIN 5cm of the vehicle. But that's another story altogether...
Author:  pixelgeek [ Mon May 14, 2012 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
That is how we play it here
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Mon May 14, 2012 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
Regarding the first point: No. Concealment is "in terrain" or intervening terrain. "in-contact" is not "in".

Regarding the second: units will be able to gain the benefits of cover while shooting completely unimpeded (in some directions, anyway :P). I assume that's OK with people? I mean, the rules already let you shoot unimpeded if you're somehow in terrain with unimpeded fields of fire, so this wouldn't be that new. Personally, I'm OK with it.
Author:  semajnollissor [ Mon May 14, 2012 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
The benefit of giving the to-hit modifier to any unit touching terrain is that it is usually more clear what models get the benefit. I enjoy the speed and reduction of arguing it allows.

Also, when playing with buildings, this comes in useful when the units can't all fit on the roof (a common problem with using SM/TL era buildings with the 40x12mm based infantry).
Author:  brumbaer [ Mon May 14, 2012 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
I had thid happen the other day.
Units of infantry crossed a gap which was too wide to make it from cover to cover. But because they just ended in contact with terrain they claimed the -1 and 4+ save, despite the fact that the movement never would have been enough.
But it really looked weird, because the unit targeting the infantry had a completley unobstructed line of sight to all of the infantries bases.

A solution for all situations, but the infantry taking cover behind vehicles rule, overwatch and all other special rules, could be:

A unit can claim a -1 to hit, if the center of the unit is in terrain or
if the shooter can not draw any unobstructed LOS to every point on any of the targets edges. The target unit itself counts as terrain for purposes of determining the LOS to itself. So you can never draw an unobstructed LOS through the target unit to a "rear" edge.

A unit can claim a cover save only if it's center is inside the terrain.
Author:  Dave [ Mon May 14, 2012 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
To clarify, the modifications aren't giving infantry a cover save AND concealment (-1 to hit) for touching terrain, just concealment. To get the cover save you still have to be in cover unless you and your opponent want to play it differently.
Author:  brumbaer [ Mon May 14, 2012 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
Dave wrote:
To clarify, the modifications aren't giving infantry a cover save AND concealment (-1 to hit) for touching terrain, just concealment. To get the cover save you still have to be in cover unless you and your opponent want to play it differently.


What's in terrain ?

1um?

Than you can you call it touching anyway, because it doesn't make any practical difference.

When you clear thie rule up, you could clear it up and not leave room for discussion.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon May 14, 2012 6:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
For reference, this is the proposed FAQ:
Quote:
Q: When is a unit in cover? A fraction of the model, more than half, fully?

A: For infantry, they can gain concealment to-hit benefit from simply touching an AV, so it makes sense that would be the standard for claiming the to-hit penalty for any terrain. As long as they touch the terrain, they can claim the benefits. To claim a cover save, infantry must be partially within the terrain.

For vehicles, impassable terrain works based on the "hull down" rules and whether the terrain obscures the model. For dangerous terrain there is a relatively easily determined standard based on the dangerous terrain check. If the model at least touches the terrain and is willing to take a dangerous terrain check, it can claim the cover benefits, i.e. no cover benefits without taking the terrain penalty. For terrain that has no effect on vehicles but might provide cover, it is best to remain consistent with infantry and dangerous terrain for vehicles and simply declare that a vehicle touching the cover can claim the benefit.

As always, though, terrain should be part of the 5 minute warmup. Players will have to work out, for example, whether touching the base of a piece of terrain counts as touching it, or if the model would need to butt up against the actual terrain feature itself rather than just the base. The answer might even be different from terrain piece to terrain piece. For example, the entire base of trees may count as being in the trees, but the base surrounding a building does not.


I would also note the design concept sidebar in the rules state that the -1 to-hit mod should be applied generously.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon May 14, 2012 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
brumbaer wrote:
What's in terrain ?

1um?

Than you can you call it touching anyway, because it doesn't make any practical difference.

When you clear thie rule up, you could clear it up and not leave room for discussion.

It would be the same standards as when a model is under a barrage template, i.e. any part of a vehicle's body (not just a weapon barrel sticking out) or one infantry model (not just part of the base).
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Mon May 14, 2012 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
There's generous and there's "given out willy-nilly in situations the rules do not permit".

The rules say "in" terrain. Not touching. If they wanted to say touching, they could. If you want it to mean touching, change the rules, don't FAQ in an alternative (and counter-intuitive) meaning.

Generous, to my mind, means that if you're uncertain about whether they've got a model in terrain, you give them the benefit of the doubt.
Author:  brumbaer [ Mon May 14, 2012 7:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
nealhunt wrote:
brumbaer wrote:
What's in terrain ?
NIP>.

It would be the same standards as when a model is under a barrage template, i.e. any part of a vehicle's body (not just a weapon barrel sticking out) or one infantry model (not just part of the base).


Could you please add something to that meaning to this FAQ entry or to an inside terrain entry.

Regarding the touching and the -1.
I'm not opposed to handle that generously.
It only feels weird, when the guys touching terrain with the small of their base (40x10mm base) can pledge cover against a unit placed 10 cm away on the other small side.

But that's no big issue - you could just call it "abstract".

Important IMHO is that there is no cover save based on touching, as implied by the last FAQ (1.8.4 2. Second question: When is a unit in cover ?).
The cover save should be based on the being in terrain. Whether the "center must be in terrain" or the "treat terrain a barrage" I don't care. Admittedly the last one might be the better choice, because it is consistent with some other rule.
Author:  Ginger [ Mon May 14, 2012 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment
1.8.2 Cover to hit (or concealment)
The logic behing being 'concealed' when touching terrain is possibly even more plausible than when touching a vehicle; terrain does not usually end abruptly; there are trees, fences, hedges, walls, outbuildings etc all of which are abstracted into the 'terrain' - rather more than the vehicle which is just that. Furthermore I have personal experience of standing just in front of a tree line and being 'invisible' to someone who was trying to find me.

However, when I raised this topic in the past within the E-UK tournament circles, everyone felt that to be concealed the unit had to be demonstrably inside the terrain, not just touching. I believe that is how it is played by most / all the UK tourney players.

I think the thing that clinched it is that people find it harder somehow to accept the target is partially concealed when it is beyond the edge of the terrain and there is nothing between them and the firer, even though they accept the unit is partially concealed when in front of a vehicle that it is touching.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/